James v. East Baton Rouge City Parish

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00394
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MICHAEL A. JAMES CIVIL ACTION VERSUS EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, ET NO. 23-00394-BAJ-EWD AL. RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion To Reconsider And/ Or Set Aside The Ruling To Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 60(b)(6) (Doc. 50, the “Motion”). Through his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to set aside the judgment of this Court rendered on May 1, 2024. The Motion is opposed. (Doc. 58). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff has not identified an enumerated ground in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(5) or an extraordinary circumstance under the rule’s catchall provision, Rule 60(b)(6), to justify his Motion. Additionally, the filing of an appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 103 S.Ct. 400, 402, 459 U.S. 56, 58 (Sup.Ct.,1982). Within the Fifth Circuit, however, there is a limited exception to that general rule. When a Rule 60(b) motion is filed after a notice of appeal has been lodged, the Fifth Circuit has recognized the limited power of a district court to consider the merits of the motion. See Johnson v. Cain, No. 13-749- BAJ-SCR, 2015 WL 5251269, at *1 (M.D. La. Sept. 4, 2015) (citing Willie v. Continental Oil Co., 746 F.2d at 1046). The narrow exception to the general rule

leaves this Court with two options: “either grant the motion, if given leave to do so by the appellate court; or consider the motion on its merits and deny it.” Silva v. Harris County., 1993 WL 391624, at *2 (C.A.5 (Tex.), 1998). Therefore, the Court shall consider the merits of Plaintiffs motion. Under Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff is required to show “extraordinary circumstances” justifying the reopening of the final judgement. Johnson, 2015 WL 5251269, at *1 (citing Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005)). The Fifth Circuit has held that the extraordinary circumstances requirement Rule 60(b)(6) is met by situations beyond the movant’s control, such as extended illness, and “requires a showing of manifest injustice.” Rogers v. Boatright, 670 F. App'x 386, 387 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 353 (5th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiffs sole argument is that his case should have been dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 50 at 3.) He argues that he should have an opportunity to exhaust unspecified administrative remedies and refile his lawsuit. Jd. Plaintiff is incorrect because dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice was not based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Instead, his lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice because it was duplicative to his three prior lawsuits, all of which were dismissed as either frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 39 at 1.) Dismissal of Plaintiffs lawsuit with prejudice was proper because the Fifth Circuit has determined that a dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy if the Court determines that a lawsuit is frivolous and/or malicious. Marts v. Hines, 117 F.8d 1504, 1506 (5th Cir. 1997). “[W]e now hold that dismissals as frivolous or malicious should be deemed to

be dismissals with prejudice unless the district court specifically dismisses without prejudice [...] Unexplained dismissals without prejudice will necessitate a remand.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has failed to point to any facts or circumstances to meet the extraordinary circumstances standard. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs Motion To Reconsider And/ Or Set Aside The Ruling To Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 60(b)(6) (Doc. 50) be and is hereby DENIED. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, nisl TE, of December, 2024 Aca ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA